Momentum is certainly key. But the Occupy movement, as with most other movements, has is beginning to peter out because of internal discord and external condemnation from popular news outlets. It is incredibly difficult to convince enough people that a cause is worth fighting for. Furthermore, most people aren't in social positions they aren't willing to jeopardize. Thus dissent becomes relegated to a handful of passionate, eager, and sometimes naive people that don't have the force of popularity or longevity behind them. This is why I think things need to become really terrible before a dissenting movement in the US will succeed in any tangible way. This is a cynical stance, I realize, but unemployment needs to continue to rise, debt must continue to increase, healthcare must become increasingly expensive, and privacy must continue to be invaded. I can't help but feel that there is a very shrewd and calculated balancing act maintained by the government in which these things never reach the tipping point of critical mass. This is antithetical to the interests of the government and elites.

Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Confidential

Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 2040

Captiv8 wrote: . I can't help but feel that there is a very shrewd and calculated balancing act maintained by the government in which these things never reach the tipping point of critical mass. This is antithetical to the interests of the government and elites.

Author james C Scott calls this this the "moral economy of the peasant"

Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:11 pm

Captiv8

Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8546
Location: Third Coast

Confidential wrote:

Captiv8 wrote: . I can't help but feel that there is a very shrewd and calculated balancing act maintained by the government in which these things never reach the tipping point of critical mass. This is antithetical to the interests of the government and elites.

Author james C Scott calls this this the "moral economy of the peasant"

Captiv8 wrote: . I can't help but feel that there is a very shrewd and calculated balancing act maintained by the government in which these things never reach the tipping point of critical mass. This is antithetical to the interests of the government and elites.

Author james C Scott calls this this the "moral economy of the peasant"

As in the mentality I expressed or what the elites are doing?

As in the people get just enough so that they don't rebel. You are right, we are still too attached to our comforts to put it all on the line. Personally, my sentiments are with a radical change in the whole system but I'm not ready to risk jail or death for this. Too much to lose still.

This is only a start, and would take a massive percentage of people to actually impact Wal-Mart. I try to convince my friends to boycott Wal-Mart and they're like "But it's cheap and I'm poor." Not comparatively, friend. Most people can't get beyond their own needs. I don't shop at Wal-Mart, but as Confidential noted I am also guilty of not being willing to put everything on the line to enact change. Again, this is why things need to get worse before they can get better.

Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:39 pm

jakethesnakeguy who cried about wrestling being real

Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one

I amend my statement. The only thing you lose by boycotting Walmart is the time and effort it takes to find a viable alternative (which may end up saving you money when you find places cheaper than Walmart).

If the nation keeps heading the way it's going, enough people will have lost enough "stuff" that they won't have any issue putting what little they have left on the line. Backed into a corner. Nothing left to lose. Other cliches, etc.